THE SYNOD OF ANTIOCH IN ENCAENIIS
A.D. 341
Elenchus

THE SYNODAL LETTER

The holy and most peaceful Synod which has been gathered together in Antioch
from the provinces of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia,
Cilicia, and Isauria;(1) to our like-minded and holy fellow Ministers in every
Province, health in the Lord.

The grace and truth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hath regarded the
holy Church of the Antiochians, and, by joining it together with unity of mind
and concord and the Spirit of Peace, hath likewise bettered many other things;
and in them all this betterment is wrought by the assistance of the holy and
peace-giving Spirit. Wherefore, that which after much examination and investigation,
was unanimously agreed upon by us bishops, who coming out of various Provinces
have met together in Antioch, we have now brought to your knowledge; trusting
in the grace of Christ and in the Holy Spirit of Peace, that ye also will agree
with us and stand by us as far as in you lies, striving with us in prayers,
and being even more united with us, following the Holy Spirit, uniting in our
definitions, and decreeing the same things as we; ye, in the concord which
proceedeth of the Holy Spirit, sealing and confirming what has been determined.

Now the Canons of the Church which have been settled are hereto appended.

THE CANONS OF THE BLESSED AND HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIA.(1)

CANON I.

WHOSOEVER, shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great Synod
which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine,
beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they shall
obstinately persist in opposing what was [then] rightly ordained, let them
be excommunicated and cast out of the Church; this is said concerning the laity.
But if any one of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop, presbyter,
or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private judgment
to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the churches, by
observing Easter [at the same time] with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees that
he shall thenceforth be an alien from the Church, as one who not only heaps
sins upon himself, but who is also the cause of destruction and subversion
to many; and it deposes not only such persons themselves from their ministry,
but those also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with
them. And the deposed shall be deprived even of that external honour, of which
the holy Canon and God's priesthood partake.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.

Whoso endeavours to change the lawful tradition of Easter, if he be a layman
let him be excommunicated, but if a cleric let him be cast out of the Church.

The connexion between these canons of Antioch and the Apostolical Canons is
so evident and so intimate that I shall note it, in each case, for the convenience
of the student.

Zonaras and Balsamon both point out that from this first canon it is evident
that the Council of Nice did take action upon the Paschal question, and in
a form well known to the Church.

CANON II.

ALL who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not communicate
with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder, from
the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church, until,
after they shall have made confession, and having brought forth the fruits
of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness;
and it is unlawful to communicate with excommunicated persons, or to assemble
in private houses and pray with those who do not pray in the Church; or to
receive in one Church those who do not assemble with another Church. And, if
any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall
be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated,
as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II.

Whoso comes to church, and attentively hears the holy Scriptures, and then
despises, goes forth from, and turns his back upon the Communion, let him be
cast out, until after having brought forth fruits of penance, he shall be indulged.
And who-so communicates with one excommunicated, shall be excommunicated, and
whoso prays with him who prays not with the Church is guilty, and even whoso
receives him who does not attend the services of the Church is not without
guilt.

BALSAMON.

In the
Eighth and Ninth canons of the Apostles it is set forth how those are to
be punished who will
not
wait for the prayers, and the holy Communion: So,
too, in the Tenth canon provision is made with respect to those who communicate
with the excommunicated. In pursuance of this the present canon provides that
they are to be cut off who come to church and do not wait for the prayer, and
through disorder [?<greek>ataxian</greek>(1) will not receive the
holy Communion; for such are to be cast out until with confession they shew
forth worthy penance.

ZONARAS.

In this
canon the Fathers refer to such as go to church but will not tarry to the
prayer nor receive
holy
Communion, held back by some perversity or license,
that is to say without any just cause, but petulantly, and by reason of some
disorder <greek>ataxian</greek>; these are forbidden to be expelled
from the Church, that is to say cut off from the congregation of the faithful.
But the Fathers call it a turning away from, not a hatred of the divine Communion,
which holds them back from communion; a certain kind of flight from it, brought
about perchance by reverence and lowliness of mind. Those who object to communicate
by reason of hatred or disgust, such must be punished not with mere separation,
but by an altogether absolute excommunication, and be cursed with anathema.

It need hardly be remarked that this canon has no reference to such of the
faithful as tarry to the end of the service and yet do not partake of the holy
sacrament, being held back by some good reason, recognized by the Church as
such. It will be remembered that the highest grade of Penitents did this habitually,
and that it was looked upon as a great privilege to be allowed to be present
when the Divine Mysteries were performed, even though those assisting as spectators
might not be partakers of them. What this canon condemns is leaving the Church
before the service of the Holy Eucharist is done; this much is clear, the difficulty
is to understand just why these particular people, against whom the canon is
directed, did so. This canon should be compared with the Apostolic canons viii.,
ix., x., xj. xij. and xiij.

CANON III.

IF any presbyter or deacon, or any one whatever belonging to the priesthood,
shall forsake his own parish, and shall depart, and, having wholly changed
his residence, shall set himself to remain for a long time in another parish,
let him no longer officiate; especially if his own bishop shall summon and
urge him to return to his own parish and he shah disobey. And if he persist
in his disorder, let him be wholly deposed from his ministry, so that no further
room be left for his restoration. And if another bishop shall receive a man
deposed for this cause, let him be punished by the Common Synod as one who
nullifies the ecclesiastical laws.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.

If any
cleric leaves his own parish and goes off to another, travelling here and
there, and stays
for a long
time in that other, let him not offer the sacrifice
(<greek>leitourgeitw</greek>), especially if he do not return when
called by his own bishop. But if he perseveres in his insolence let him be
deposed, neither afterwards let him have any flower to return. And if any bishop
shall receive him thus deposed, he shall be punished by the Common Synod for
breach of the ecclesiastical laws.

IF any bishop who has been deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or deacon
who has been deposed by his bishop shall presume to execute any part of the
ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former custom, or a presbyter,
or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect of restoration in another
Synod; nor any opportunity of making his defence; but they who communicate
with him shall all be cast out of the Church, and particularly if they have
presumed to communicate with the persons aforementioned, knowing the sentence
pronounced against them.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.

If a bishop deposed by a synod shall dare to celebrate the liturgy, let him
have no chance of return.

This canon
derives its chief interest from the fact that it is usually considered to
have been adopted
at the instigation
of the party opposed to St. Athanasius
and that afterwards it was used against St. Chrysostom. But while such may
have been the secret reason why some voted for it and others prized it, it
must be remembered that its provision is identical with that of the Apostolic
Canons, and that it was read at the Council of Chalcedon as Canon eighty-three.
Remi Ceillier (Histoire GenHistoire Gnoeral des Autheurs, p. 659) tries to
prove that this is not the canon which St. Chrysostom and his friends rejected,
but Hefele thinks his position "altogether untenable" (Hist. of the
Councils, Vol. II., p. (62, n. 1), and refers to Tillemont (Memories, p. 329,
Sur les Arians, and Fuchs' Bib. der Kirchenversammlungen, P. II., p. 59.(2))

Compare Apostolic Canon xxviij.

This canon
is found twice in the Juris Corpus Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II.,
Causa XI., Quaest.
III.,
Can. vj., and Can. vij. in the version of
Martin Bracarensis. This version is very interesting as expanding the phrase "to
execute any part of the ministry" into "to make the oblation, or
to perform the morning or evening sacrifice as though he were in office just
as before, etc."

CANON V.

IF any presbyter or deacon, despising this own bishop, has separated himself
from the Church, and gathered a private assembly, and set up an altar; and
if, when summoned by Iris bishop, he shall refuse to be persuaded and will
not obey, even though he summon him a first and a second time, let such an
one be wholly deposed and have no further remedy, neither be capable of regaining
his rank. And if he persist in troubling and disturbing the Church, let him
be corrected, as a seditious person, by the civil power.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.

Any presbyter or deacon who spurns his bishop, and withdraws from him, and
sets up another altar, if after being thrice called by the bishop, he shall
persist in his arrogancy, let him be deposed and be deprived of all hope of
restoration.

It will be noted that the Ancient Epitome mentions three warnings, and the
canon only two. The epitome in this evidently follows the Apostolical Canon,
number thirty-one. It is somewhat curious that Aristenus in commenting on this
canon does not note the discrepancy.

CANON VI.

IF any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not be received
by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop, or until, when
a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his defence, and, having convinced
the synod, shall have received a different sentence. And let this decree apply
to the laity, and to presbyters and deacons, and all who are enrolled in the
clergy-list.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.

Compare Apostolic Canons numbers XII. and XXXII.

The sentence of the greater synod upon a clerk excommunicated by his bishop,
whether of acquittal or condemnation, shall stand.

Compare the Apostolic Canon number XXXIII For a discussion of the Letters
styled pacifici, see notes on next canon.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. lxxi., c. ix. in Isidore's version. The Roman Corectors the Apostolic
note that Dionysius must have had a different reading from the Greek we know.

CANON VIII.

LET not country presbyters give letters canonical, or let them send such letters
only to the neighbouring bishops. But the chorepiscopi of good report may give
letters pacifical.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.

A country
presbyter is not to give canonical letters, or[at most> only
to a neighbouring bishop.

These "letters canonical" were called in the West letters "formatoe," and
no greater proof of the great influence they had in the early days of the Church
in binding the faithful together can be found than the fact that Julian the
Apostate made an attempt to introduce something similar among the pagans of
his empire.

"Commendatory letters" (<greek>epistolai</greek> <greek>sustatikai</greek>)
are spoken of by St. Paul in 2 Cor. iii. 1, and the reader will find some interesting
remarks on this and cognate subjects in J. J. Blunt's, The Christian Church
during the first three Centuries (Chapter II).

By means of these letters even the lay people found hospitality and care in
every part of the world, and it was thrown up against the Donatists as a mark
of their being schismatics that their canonical letters were good only among
themselves.

Pseudo-Isidore informs us that it was stated at the Council of Chalcedon by
Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, that it was agreed at the Council of Nice
that all such letters should be marked II. Y. A. II. (i.e. Father, Son, Holy
Spirit), and it is asserted (Herzog, Real-Encyk., s. v. Literae Format, Real-Encyk.,
s. v. Literae Formatae) that this form is found in German documents of the
sixth century.

As will
be seen among the Canons of Chalcedon, the old name, Letters Commendatory,
is continued,
but in this
canon and in the 41st of Laodicea the expression "Canonical
Letters" is used. In the West, at least, these letters received the episcopal
seal of the diocese to avoid all possibility of imposture. Dean Plumptre (whom
I am following very closely in this note) believes the earliest evidence of
this use of the diocesan seal is in Augustine (Epist. lix. al. ccxvij.)He also
refers to Ducange, s. v. Formatae.

As these
letters admitted their bearers to communion they were sometimes called "Communion
letters" (<greek>koinwnikai</greek>), and are so described
by St. Cyril of Alexandria; and by the Council of Elvira (canon xxv.), and
by St. Augustine (Epist. xliii. al. clxii).

The "Letters Pacifical" appear to have been of an eleemosynary character,
so that the bearers of them obtained bodily help. Chalcedon in its eleventh
canon ordains these "Letters pacifical" shall be given to the poor,
whether they be clerics or laics. The same expression is used in the preceding
canon of the synod.

A later
form of ecclesiastical letter is that with which we are so familiar, the "letter dimissory." This expression first occurs in Carom XVII.
of the Council in Trullo. On this expression Suicer (Thesaurus, s. v. <greek>apolutikh</greek>)
draws from the context the conclusion that "letters dimissory" were
given only for permanent change of ecclesiastical residence, while, "letters
commendatory" were given to those whose absence from their diocese was.
only temporary.

CANON IX.

IT behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides
in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because
all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore
it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do
nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed
from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own
particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has
authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent
on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent
on his city; to ordain prebysters and deacons; and to settle everything with
judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis;
neither the latter without the consent of the others.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX.

Bishops should be bound to opinion of the metropolitan, and nothing should
they do without his knowledge except only such things as have reference to
the diocese of each, and let them ordain men free from blame.

CANON X.

THE Holy Synod decrees that persons in villages and districts, or those who
are called chorepiscopi, even though they may have received ordination to the
Episcopate, shall regard their own limits and manage the churches subject to
them, and be content with the care and administration of these; but they may
ordain readers, sub-deacons and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting
these, but shall not presume to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon, without
the consent of bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject.
And if he shall dare to transgress [these] decrees, he shall be deposed from
tile rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop
of the city to which he is subject.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

A chorepiscopus makes Exorcists, Lectors, Sub-deacons and Singers, but not
a presbyter or a deacon without the bishop of the city. Who dares to transgress
this law let him be deposed.The bishop of the city makes the chorpiscopus.

For the Minor Orders in the Early Church see the Excursus on the subject appended
to Canon XXIV. of Laodicea.

"Ordination to the episcopate." In translating thus I have followed
both Dionysius and Isidore. the former of whom translates "although they
had received the imposition of tim hand of the bishop and had been consecreted
bishops;" and the latter "although they had received from bishops
the imposition of the hand, and had been consecrated bishops.":

CANON XI.

IF any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume
to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of the bishop
of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one
shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from communion, but also from
the rank which he happens to have; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears
of our Emperor beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary
business shall. require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the
advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and
let him undertake his journey with letters from them.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

A bishop or presbyter who (of his own motion and not at the bidding of the
Metropolitan of the province goes to the Emperor shall be deprived both of
communion and dignity.

This canon is one of those magnificent efforts which the early church made
to check the already growing inclination to what we have in later times learned
to call Erastianism. Not only did the State, as soon as it became Christian,
interfere in spiritual matters at its own motion, but there were found bishops
and others of the clergy who not being able to attain their ends otherwise,
appealed to the civil power, usually to the Emperor himself, and thus the whole
discipline of the Church was threatened, and the authority of spiritual synods
set aside. How unsuccessful the Church often was in this struggle is only too
evident from the remarks of the Greek commentator Balsamon on this very canon.

CANON XlI.

IF any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop deposed
by a synod, shall dare to trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his duty
to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more bishops
the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and decision
made by them; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be
entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have an opportunity of defence, nor
any hope of future restoration.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XII.

One deposed, if he shall have troubled the Emperor, shall seek the greater
synod, and submit to its decree. But if he again misbehave himself, he shall
not have any chance of restoration.

It is usually supposed that this canon, as well as the fourth, and the fourteenth
and fifteenth, was directed against St. Athanasius, and it was used against
St. Chrysostom by his enemies. Vide Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book
II., Chapter viii., and Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History, Book III., chapter
v.; also ibid. Book VII., chapter xx.

No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons
to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others
with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan
and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation,
proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical
affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself
shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking,
by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII.

If without invitation a bishop shall go into another province, and shall ordain,
and administer affairs, what he does shall be void and he himself The Roman
Correctors are not satisfied with shall be deposed.

Compare with this Apostolic Canon xxxv.; also canon xxii. of this same synod.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa ix., Quaest. II., Can. vj. in the Versio Prisca. The Roman Correctors
are not satisfied with it, however, nor with any version and give the Greek
text, to which they add an accurate translation.

CANON XIV.

IF a bishop shall be tried on any accusations, and it should then happen that
the bishops of the province disagree concerning him, some pronouncing the accused
innocent, and others guilty; for the settlement of all disputes, the holy Synod
decrees that the metropolitan call on some others belonging to the neighbouring
province, who shall add their judgment and resolve the dispute, and thus, with
those of the province, confirm what is determined.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV.

If the bishops of the province disagree among themselves as to an accused
bishop, that the controversy may be certainly settled, let other neighbouring
bishops be called in.

ZONARAS.

When any bishop shall have been condemned with unanimous consent by all the
bishops of the province, the condemnation cannot be called into doubt, as this
synod has set forth in its fourth canon. But if all the bishops are not of
the same mind, but some contend that he should be condemned and others the
contrary, then other bishops may by called in by the metropolitan from the
neighbouring provinces, and when their votes are added to one or other of the
parties among the bishops, then controversy should be brought to a close. This
also is the law of the Synod of Sardica, canons iii. and v.

ARISTENUS.

Every bishop accused of crimes should be judged by his own synod, but if the
bishops of the province differ, some saying that he is innocent and some that
he is guilty, the metropolitan can call other bishops from a neighbouring province
that they may solve the controversy agitated by the bishops.

This canon
is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa
vi., Quaest.
iv., can.
j. The Roman Correctors note that the Latin
translation implies that the neighbouring metropolitan is to be invited and
say, "But, in truth, it hardly seems fitting that one metropolitan should
come at the call of another, and that there should be two metropolitans in
one synod."

CANON XV.

IF any bishop, lying under any accusation, shall be judged by all the bishops
in the province, and all shall unanimously deliver the same verdict concerning
him, he shah not be again judged by others, but the unanimous sentence of the
bishops of the province shall stand firm.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV.

If all the bishops of a province agree with regard to a bishop already sentenced,
a new trial shall not be granted him.

CANON XVI.

IF any bishop without a see shall throw himself upon a vacant church and seize
its throne, without a full synod, he shall be cast out, even if all the people
over whom he has usurped jurisdiction should choose him. And that shall be
[accounted] a full synod, in which the metropolitan is present.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI.

Whoever without the full synod and without the

Metropolitan Council, shall go over to a vacant church, even if he has no
position, he shall be ejected.

CANON XVII.

IF any one having received the ordination of a bishop, and having been appointed
to preside over a people, shall not accept his ministry, and will not be persuaded
to proceed to the Church entrusted to him, he shall be excommunicated until
he, being constrained, accept it, or until a full synod of the bishops of the
province shall have determined concerning. him.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII.

Whoso has received orders and abandoned them let him be excommunicated, until
he shall have repented and been received.

ZONARAS.

If any one called to the rule of the people refuse to undertake that office
and ministry, let him be removed from communion, that is separated, until he
accept the position. But should he persist in his refusal, he can by no means
be absolved from his separation, unless perchance the full synod shall take
some action in his case. For it is possible that he may assign reasonable causes
why he should be excused from accepting the prelature offered him, reasons
which would meet with the approbation of the synod.

Balsamon
explains the canon in the same sense and adds that by "ordination" here
is intended ordination proper, not merely election, as some have held.

Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXVI.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. XCII., C. vii. The Roman Correctors note that Dionysius's version
is nearer the Greek.

CANON XVIII.

IF any bishop ordained to a parish shall not proceed to the parish to which
he has been ordained, not through any fault of his own, but either because
of the rejection of the people, or for any other reason not arising from himself,
let him enjoy his rank and ministry; only he shall not disturb the affairs
of the Church which he joins; and he shall abide by whatever the full synod
of the province shall determine, after judging the ease.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIII.

Let a bishop ordained but not received by his city have his part of the honour,
and offer the liturgy only, waiting for the synod of the province to give judgment.

BALSAMON.

In canon xvij. the fathers punished him who when ordained could not be persuaded
to go to the church to which he was assigned. In the present canon they grant
pardon to him who is willing to take the charge of the diocese, for which he
was consecrated, but is prevented from doing so by the impudence of the people
or else by the incursions of the infidel; and therefore they allow him to enjoy,
in whatever province he may happen to be, the honour due his rank, viz., his
throne, his title, and the exercise of the episcopal office, with the knowledge
and consent of the bishop of the diocese. He must not, however, meddle will,
the affairs of the church of which he is a guest, that is to say he must not
teach, nor ordain, nor perform any episcopal act without the consent of the
bishop of the diocese; but he must observe quiet, until he learns what he ought
to do by the determination of the full Synod.

Aristenus
explains that by keeping quiet is intended that he should not "use
any military help or other power."

This canon is found twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xcii., c. iv. and v.; in the versions of Martin Bracarensis
and of Dionysius.

CANON XIX.

A BISHOP shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the metropolitan
of the province. And when he is present, it is by all means better that all
his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble together with
him; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter. And it were better
that all should meet; but if this be difficult, it is indispensable that a
majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and
that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent,
of the majority; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination
shall be of no force. And if the appointment shall be made according to the
prescribed canon, and any should object through natural love of contradiction,
the decision of the majority shall prevail.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX.

If there be no synod and metropolitan, let there be no bishop. If on account
of some difficulty all do not meet together, at least let the greater number,
or let them give their assent by letter. But if after the affair is all settled
a few are contentious, let the vote of the majority stand firm.

ZONARAS.

In the
first place it must be noted that by "ordination" in this
place is meant election, and the laying on of the bishop's hand.

BALSAMON.

The method of choosing a bishop is laid down in the canons of Nice, number
iv., but the present canon adds the provision that an election which takes
place in violation of the provisions of this decree is null and invalid: and
that when those who are electing are divided in opinion as to whom to choose,
the votes of the majority shall prevail. But when you hear this canon saying
that there should be no election without the presence of the Metropolitan,
you must not say that he ought to be present at an election (for this was prohibited,
as is found written in other canons) but rather say that his presence here
is a permission or persuasion, without which no election could take place.

Compare Apostolic Canon number j.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. LXV., can. iij. Gratian has chosen Isidore's version, and the Roman
Correctors point out that Dionysius' is preferable.

CANON XX.

WITH a view to the good of the Church and the settlement of disputes, it is
decreed to be well that synods of the bishops, (of which the metropolitan shall
give notice to the provincials), should be held in every province twice a year,
one after the third week of the feast of Easter, so that the synod may be ended
in the fourth week of the Pentecost; and the second on the ides of October
which is the tenth [or fifteenth] day of the month Hyperberetaeus; so that
presbyters and deacons, and all who think themselves unjustly dealt with, may
resort to these synods and obtain the judgment of the synod. But it shall be
unlawful for any to hold synods by themselves without those who are entrusted
with the Metropolitan Sees.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX.

On account of ecclesiastical necessities the synod in every province shall
meet twice a year, in the fourth week of Pentecost and on the tenth day of
Hyperbereoeus.

SCHELESTRATIUS (cit. Van Espen).

The time fixed by the Council of Nice before Lent for the meeting of the synod
was not received in the East, and the bishops kept on in the old custom of
celebrating the council in the fourth week after Easter, for the time before
Lent often presented the greatest difficulties for those in the far separated
cities to come to the provincial metropolis.

CANON XXI.

A BISHOP may not be translated from one parish to another, either intruding
himself of his own suggestion, or under compulsion by the people, or by constraint
of the bishops; but he shall remain in the Church to which he was allotted
by God from the beginning, and shall not be translated from it, according to
the decree formerly passed on the subject.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI.

A bishop even if compelled by the people, and compelled by the bishops, must
not be translated to another diocese.

See the treatment of the translation of bishops in the Excursus to canon xv.
of Nice. Compare this canon with Apostolical Canon number xiv.

LET not a bishop go to a strange city, which is not subject to himself, nor
into a district which does not belong to him, either to ordain any one, or
to appoint presbyters or deacons to places within the jurisdiction of another
bishop, unless with the consent of the proper bishop of the place. And if any
one shall presume to do any such thing, the ordination shall be void, and he
himself shall be punished by the synod.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII.

A bishop shall not go from city to city ordaining people, except by the will
of the bishop of the city: otherwise the ordination shall be without force,
and he himself exposed to censure.

If we do not draw a rash conclusion, we should say that the interference of
bishops in dioceses not their own, must have been very frequent in early days.
This one synod enacted two canons (number XIII. and this present canon) on
the subject. The same prohibition is found in canons XIV. and XXXV. of the
Apostolic canons, in canon XV. of Nice, canon ij. of I. Constantinople and
in many others. On account of the similarity of this canon to canon xiii. some
have supposed it to be spurious, the enactment of some other synod, and this
was the opinion of Godefrides Hermantius (Vita S. Athanasii, Lib. IV., cap.
xij.) as well as of Alexander Natalis (Hist. Sec., IV., Dissert. xxv.). Van
Espen, however, is of opinion that the two canons do not cover exactly the
same ground, for he says Canon XIII. requires letters both from the Metropolitan
and from the other bishops of the province, while this canon XXII. requires
only the consent of the diocesan. He concludes that Canon XIII. refers to a
diocese sede vacante, when the Metropolitan with the other bishops took care
of the widowed church, but that Canon XXII. refers to a diocese with its own
bishop, whose will is all that is needed for the performance of episcopal acts
by another bishop. And this distinction Schelestratius makes still more evident
by his discussion of the matter in his scholion on Canon XIII.

Compare with this canon of the Apostolic Canons number XXXV. also number XIV.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa IX., Quaest. II., can. vij., but in a form differing far from the
Greek original, as the Roman Correctors point out; and even Gratian's present
text is not as he wrote it, but amended.

CANON XXIII.

IT shall not be lawful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint
another as successor to himself; and if any such thing should be done, the
appointment shall be void. But the ecclesiastical law must be observed, that
a bishop must not be appointed otherwise than by a synod and with tile judgment
of the bishops, who have the authority to promote tile man who is worthy, after
the falling asleep of him who has ceased from his labours.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIII.

A dying bishop shall not appoint another bishop. But when he is dead a worthy
successor shall be provided by a synod of those who have this power.

Nothing
could be more important than the provision of this canon. It is evidently
intended to prevent
nepotism
in every form, and to leave the appointment to
the vacant see absolutely to the free choice of the Metropolitan and his synod.
The history of the Church, and its present practice, is a curious commentary
upon the ancient legislation, and the appointment of coadjutor bishops cure
jure successionis, so common in later days, seems to be a somewhat ingenious
way of escaping the force of the canon. Van Espen, however, reminds his readers
of the most interesting case of St. Augustine of Hippo (which he himself narrates
in his Epistle CCXIII.) of how he was chosen by his predecessor as bishop of
Hippo, both he and the then bishop being ignorant of the fact that it was prohibited
by the canons. And how when in his old age the people wished him to have one
chosen bishop to help him till his death and to succeed him afterwards, he
declined saying: "What was worthy of blame in my own case, shall not be
a blot likewise upon my son." He did not hesitate to say who he thought
most worthy to succeed him, but he added, "he shall be a presbyter, as
he is, and when God so wills he shall be a bishop." Van Espen adds; "All
this should be read carefully that thence may be learned how St. Augustine
set an example to bishops and pastors of taking all the pains possible that
after their deaths true pastors, and not thieves and wolves, should enter into
their flocks, who in a short time would destroy all they had accomplished by
so much labour in so long a time." (Cf. Eusebius. H. E., Lib. VI., cap.
xj. and car. xxxij.)

Compare Apostolic Canon number LXXVI.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa VIII., Quaest. I., can. III., in Dionysius's version, and again
Canon IV. in that of Martin Bracarensis.

CANON XXIV.

IT is right that what belongs to the Church be preserved with all care to
the Church, with a good conscience and faith in God, the inspector and judge
of all. And these things ought to be administered under the judgment and authority
of the bishop, who is entrusted with the whole people and with the souls of
the congregation. But it should be manifest what is church property, with the
knowledge of the presbyters and deacons about him; so that these may know assuredly
what things belong to the Church, and that nothing be concealed from them,
in order that, when the bishop may happen to depart this life, the property
belonging to the Church being well known, may not be embezzled nor lost, and
in order that the private property of the bishop may not be disturbed on a
pretence that it is part of the ecclesiastical goods. For it is just and well-pleasing
to God and man that the private property of the bishop be bequeathed to whomsoever
he will, but that for the Church be kept whatever belongs to the Church; so
that neither the Church may suffer loss, nor the bishop be injured under pretext
of the Church's interest, nor those who belong to him fall into lawsuits, and
himself, after his death, be brought under reproach.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV.

All the clergy should be cognizant of ecclesiastical matters; so that when
the bishop dies the Church may preserve her own goods; but what belongs to
the bishop shall be disposed of according to his directions.

CANON XXV.

LET the
bishop have power over the funds of the Church, so as to dispense them with
all piety and in
the
fear of God to all who need. And if there be
occasion, let him take what he requires for his own necessary uses and those
of his brethren sojourning with him, so that they may in no way lack, according
to the divine Apostle, who says, "Having food and raiment, let us therewith
be content." And if he shall not be content with these, but shall apply
the funds to his own private uses, and not manage the revenues of the Church,
or the rent of the farms, with the consent of the presbyters and deacons, but
shall give the authority to his own domestics and kinsmen, or brothers, or
sons, so that the accounts of the Church are secretly injured, he himself shall
submit to an investigation by the synod of the province. But if, on the other
hand, the bishop or his presbyters shall be defamed as appropriating to themselves
what belongs to the Church, (whether from lands or any other ecclesiastical
resources), so that the poor are oppressed, and accusation and infamy are brought
upon the account and on those who so administer it, let them also be subject
to correction, the holy synod determining what is right.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXV.

The bishop shall have power over ecclesiastical goods. But should he not be
content with those things which are sufficient for him but shall alienate the
goods and revenues of the church, without the advice of the clergy, penalties
shall be I exacted from him in the presence of the synod. But if he has converted
to his own uses what was given for the poor, of this also let him give an explanation
to the synod.

Compare with this canon Apostolic Canon number XLI.

This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa XII., Quaest I., can. XXIII. and with this should be compared canon
XXII. immediately preceding.